Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

I think it's safe to say that the antecedent of αὐτόν in verse 10 is τὸ φῶς in verse 9 ...

I don't disagree, but the masculine pronoun indicates that the light is personalized in Jesus.

Indeed...

The writer is using constructio ad sensum -- by referring to the neuter noun τὸ φῶς (verse 9) with a masculine pronoun αὐτόν (verse 10) . But in verse 5 he uses a neuter pronoun to refer to the same noun,.. no constructio ad sensum. Why ? Because in verse 10 the impersonal had become a person.

The writer is using constructio ad sensum -- by referring to the neuter noun τὸ φῶς (verse 9) with a masculine pronoun αὐτόν (verse 10) . But in verse 5 he uses a neuter pronoun to refer to the same noun,.. no constructio ad sensum. Why ? Because in verse 10 the impersonal had become a person.

χαῖρε, φίλε!

Well put. This is a case where the Greek grammar illuminates the theology, though usually is it the other way around.

I think here that John is so convinced that the light is Jesus, that it spills out with the masculine pronoun "αυτον". It almost makes no difference at all weather το φως or ο Ιησους is the antecedent. If o Ιησους is the antecedent, then it may be so from his own mind and not from the following verses, because after all, it is the evangelist who is convinced and is convincing us that ο Ιησους φως εστιν.

uberdwayne wrote:I think here that John is so convinced that the light is Jesus, that it spills out with the masculine pronoun "αυτον". It almost makes no difference at all weather το φως or ο Ιησους is the antecedent. If o Ιησους is the antecedent, then it may be so from his own mind and not from the following verses, because after all, it is the evangelist who is convinced and is convincing us that ο Ιησους φως εστιν.

Yes I agree. At some point after v.9 there seems to be slippage from the neuter to the masculine, i.e. from τὸ φῶς retaining its neuter gender to its being personified as (unnamed) Jesus. But it's not quite that simple, because αὐτόν is sometimes used as an alternative form of αὐτό, i.e. as neuter, esp. in koine and esp. before a word beginning with a vowel (the nu breaks the hiatus, cf. the "movable" nu in e.g. ηλθε(ν)). So throughout this passage, after the unequivocal neuters of 9, all the αυτον’s etc. could be taken as either neuter or masculine. There's an equivocality that's impossible to capture in English, which has to choose between "it" and "him." A rare phenomenon: the English inflection of personal pronouns (he/she/it) here surpasses that of Greek! But in light (no pun intended ) of αυτο in 5 it does seem most natural to read αυτον etc. as masculine. The manuscripts are remarkably consistent.

mwh wrote:Yes I agree. At some point after v.9 there seems to be slippage from the neuter to the masculine, i.e. from τὸ φῶς retaining its neuter gender to its being personified as (unnamed) Jesus. But it's not quite that simple, because αὐτόν is sometimes used as an alternative form of αὐτό, i.e. as neuter, esp. in koine and esp. before a word beginning with a vowel (the nu breaks the hiatus, cf. the "movable" nu in e.g. ηλθε(ν)). So throughout this passage, after the unequivocal neuters of 9, all the αυτον’s etc. could be taken as either neuter or masculine. There's an equivocality that's impossible to capture in English, which has to choose between "it" and "him." A rare phenomenon: the English inflection of personal pronouns (he/she/it) here surpasses that of Greek! But in light (no pun intended ) of αυτο in 5 it does seem most natural to read αυτον etc. as masculine. The manuscripts are remarkably consistent.

Actually in verse 10 τὸ φῶς has become a human being, that is why there is a shift to the masculine [natural] gender ( αὐτὸν) in subsequent references to τὸ φῶς , rather than just normal (grammatical) gender agreement ( αὐτὸ) , as was the case in verse 5...In other words when the apostle is thinking of τὸ φῶς in verse 5 he's not imagining a "person," but in verses 10, 11 and 12 he is..

Certainly that's a tenable and perfectly respectable view, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but it misses the point I was making - that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender. That makes it difficult or impossible to fix the precise point at which the reconceptualization occurs.

(Your insistence on "a human being" incidentally begs the tormented theological question of the humanity/divinity of Jesus, but that's a side issue, and I'm certainly not going there.)

mwh wrote:Certainly that's a tenable and perfectly respectable view, and I'm inclined to agree with it, but it misses the point I was making - that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender. That makes it difficult or impossible to fix the precise point at which the reconceptualization occurs.

(Your insistence on "a human being" incidentally begs the tormented theological question of the humanity/divinity of Jesus, but that's a side issue, and I'm certainly not going there.)

MWH wrote:that auton can be neuter, and accordingly there's built-in ambiguity as to gender.

Thanks for posting, I'm finding your posts insightful and interesting! So with that being said...Are you asserting that αυτον doesn't just act neuter but is sometimes actually neuter? I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but if the later is true, I think there would be some rather large implications here. Do you have any sources that think the same as you?

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

That (bold above) would render it a non-starter , at least biblically...

I'm not sure I'm capable of elaborating beyond my original post, coupled with my last. I did my best to explain there, and if there's anything in particular you don't understand I'll be happy to elucidate. But when I said auton could be neuter yes I did mean that it's a well attested variant form of auto. The standard dictionaries are not very good on this, though LSJ does say at the outset of the autos entry:

The only NT lexicon I have to hand is the Shorter Gingrich-Danker, which simply gives the neuter as the regular auto. You'd have to look at the bigger NT or koine ones for documentation, or papyrological grammars (Mayser or Gignac). It may be that auton neuter is not recognized as occurring in the NT - hey, it may be that auton neuter actually does not occur in the NT, but I thought it worth raising the possibility, since it's firmly attested before vowels in koine, perhaps merely as an orthographical variant. It doesn't actually make much difference to the passage in John, to my mind, since it's pretty clear that there's a shift from the neuter (fws) to the masculine somewhere along the way.

That (bold above) would render it a non-starter , at least biblically...

What exactly do you mean by "non-starter"? Do you mean that this line of thinking shouldn't even have been suggested because it might not be the case?

Do you still stand by your [forgive me, strange] assertion that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in verse 10 is not τὸ φῶς but Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 17 ?

As a reminder, here is our discussion from 7 months ago at Carm:

Isaac Newton: Which noun is the antecedent of αὐτὸν in verse 10 ? Is it λόγος in John 1:1c ? Y/N ?Jaihare: I said “no,” and I meant “no.” So, let me say it again: “No.” Again? “No!” Can I be more expressive? NOOOO. Again? NOOO! Now shut up already, you ----! [note: I've taken the liberty to remove your last word in this sentence and replaced it with four dashes ---- ]

Isaac Newton: Does αὐτὸν in verse 10 have an antecedent ?Jaihare: Every pronoun has an antecedent. It is the real-world representation of the character that he’s introducing. It is neither λόγος nor φῶς. Have you not read a single word that I’ve so eloquently written? Get it through your skull already!

Do you still stand by your [forgive me, strange] assertion that the antecedent of αὐτὸν in verse 10 is not τὸ φῶς but Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in verse 17 ?

As a reminder, here is our discussion from 7 months ago at Carm:

Isaac Newton: Which noun is the antecedent of αὐτὸν in verse 10 ? Is it λόγος in John 1:1c ? Y/N ?Jaihare: I said “no,” and I meant “no.” So, let me say it again: “No.” Again? “No!” Can I be more expressive? NOOOO. Again? NOOO! Now shut up already, you ----! [note: I've taken the liberty to remove your last word in this sentence and replaced it with four dashes ---- ]

Isaac Newton: Does αὐτὸν in verse 10 have an antecedent ?Jaihare: Every pronoun has an antecedent. It is the real-world representation of the character that he’s introducing. It is neither λόγος nor φῶς. Have you not read a single word that I’ve so eloquently written? Get it through your skull already!

Isaac Newton wrote:If I have told you on CARM that you are on ignore, what makes you bring the conversation here?

Respectfully, then why are you not ignoring me ? You should not even be able to see this post.

Remember, you have [apparently] put me on ignore, I haven't and I won't. I have no reason to "ignore" you. So I'm not doing anything wrong, however you're breaking your word (once again) by not ignoring me .

I have you on ignore on CARM, and I'd appreciate you not addressing me here.

I think those who assert that αὐτόν in verse 10 ( or 11 or 12) does not take φῶς as its antecedent are mistaken . I feel as though I have a duty to tell the readers that this understanding is incorrect . The following conclusions by Jaihare IMHO are false. :

Τὸ Φῶς there is a word picture that is used to describe Jesus. It is said that God is love, God is light, God is goodness, God is life, etc. Jesus stated in John’s gospel that “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25), and in the prologue to this gospel we see that “life was in [the Logos]” (ἐν [τῷ Λόγῳ] ζωὴ ἦν). The light being described in verse 9 is anthropomorphized. It is not simply “light” in the sense of what radiates from the sun or from the ﬁlament of a bulb. It is the source of light, and this light source was a being. How do I know? Because it says of John that “he himself was not that light.” There would be no sense in making that statement if we were not to associate this light with a person. John came to give testimony concerning the light (Jesus).

So, why is τὸ Φῶς not the antecedent of αὐτόν in John 1:9? Because the antecedent to the masculine pronoun is the person for whom both ὁ Λόγος and τὸ Φῶς were merely metaphors. The masculine pronoun refers to JESUS, as it was he who “came unto his own” and “his own did not accept him” and “he was in the world” and “the world did not know him.” This was Jesus, as all of the continuation demonstrates. Verse 9 is where we switch clearly from speaking in metaphor to bringing the Word and the Light into the world, as it states that “the true Light… was coming into the world” and “the Word became ﬂesh and dwelt among us.”

It’s clear why αὐτόν (masculine) does not take φῶς (neuter) as its antecedent. It’s like saying that “God is a hen” (feminine – used as a metaphor) and then using masculine pronouns to describe God, the person behind the metaphor. In this case, the author is speaking of Jesus coming into the world, and even though a metaphor may appear in the neuter, the idea behind the metaphor is not neuter – but masculine.

I will say, though, that I’ve provided you at every step very clear posts with good explanations of my thinking and my purposes. I’ve never received a reply from you that was half as serious, and yet you would wish to cast aside my “antics.” It is you, my unevolved opponent, who has nothing but antics in his arsenal and cannot provide any fresh or enlightening thoughts for the rest of the forum to draw beneﬁt from.

--

Jaihare also said the following in response to my question, " Does αὐτὸν in verse 10 have an antecedent ?"

Every pronoun has an antecedent. It is the real-world representation of the character that he’s introducing. It is neither λόγος nor φῶς. Have you not read a single word that I’ve so eloquently written? Get it through your skull already!